O'Reilly: "Let me get this straight, Ms. Fluke, and I'm asking this with all due respect," he said. "You want me to give you my hard-earned money so you can have sex?" (Fluke is actually calling for her university's private insurance plan to cover birth control.)"
According to HuffPost, they claim because Fluke uses private university insurance that it does not cost O'Reilly a cent. But that is so bogus. Fluke, along with the rest of the left are not simply demanding that Georgetown University insurance pay for contraceptives. No sir. They are calling for ALL insurance companies to provide free contraception. And that makes every single American pay for it, because premiums are paid by all who have insurance. So, while HuffPost tries to minimalize O'Reilly by minimalizing the issue, the truth is O'Reilly is absolutely correct - if Fluke and her friends get their way, we will ALL be paying for her and her friends to have wanton sex.
Frankly, if I am going to pay for someone to have sex, that someone had better be me.
Now for some of the loony, nonsensical responses to the story:
capone58 said, "Typical - you'd rather pay to support an unplanned pregnancy resulting in another welfare baby then pay to prevent it in the first place. Since that makes no fiscal sense, it's a typical Republican stance."
[My Reply] Sorry, Capone, but you do not even understand the issue - it is not about pregnancy. It's about one person having to pay for another person to have sex - for O'Reilly to have to pay premiums to cover someone else's contraceptives. But for the sake of argument, you also lose on your position about "resulting in another welfare baby". Or perhaps you are too dumb to understand that the woman does not HAVE TO have sex. She can 1) but her own damned contraceptives, 2) have her sleep-mate buy them, or 3) keep her legs crossed. The point is simple, and I have made it many times before --- DO NOT ASK ME TO ABORT YOUR BABY OR SUPPORT YOUR BABY. Both are YOUR responsibility. And by the way, the "Republican stance" is not for there to be more welfare babies to support. The Republican stance is PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY --- if you want to PLAY, then you should PAY.
MarinaLoves said, "not only women but men should be furious about this! you're not paying her to have sex you're paying so that she doesnt get pregnant!"
[MY REPLY] Wrong! The point O'Reilly and Republicans make is that we should not be paying for either. Why should we pay you to not get pregnant? That's a subsidy, like paying a farmer not to grow potatoes. Your sex life is not our concern, and regardless of WHAT choices you make, they are YOUR CHOICES. So YOU pay for them. I don't see you calling for insurance to cover my bill for natural foods. After all, they help prevent me from getting obese and sick from all the chemicals in other food. And a study shows that one beer a day helps keep a person healthy, so maybe you can call for insurance companies to buy my beer!
As a side note, Ms. Fluke stated that a female Georgetown University student would have to spend "$3,000 a year for contraceptives". Wow! If that is true, Georgetown female students must be having sex 12 times a day, 365 days a year. And if THAT is also true, then Limbaugh was right - they ARE "sluts". When do they have time to study?
Georgetown costs $63,000 a year. Any student who can afford that can afford 50 cents for a damned condom. And if she cannot afford the condom, perhaps she should abstain from sex and concentrate more on her studies.
My stance, and that of most conservatives is simple:
DO NOT ASK ME TO ABORT, OR SUPPORT, YOUR CHILDREN. THEY ARE YOUR RESPONSIBILITY.